Talk:Civil Rights Act of 1964
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on July 3, 2004, July 3, 2005, July 3, 2006, July 2, 2009, July 2, 2010, and July 2, 2014.|
"The South, which had started to vote increasingly Republican beginning in the 1930s"
Not true, FDR won Southern states overwhelmingly in Alabama he won 84.7% of the vote. The trend started in the 1920s but then there was a reversal in the 30s as it became moved more democratic again.
Should be changed to:
The South, which had begun to shift towards the Republicans in the 1920s
Contemporaneous newspaper article(s)
Text of President’s Civil Rights Talk: ‘This Is A Proud Triumph’, The Miami News, Washington (AP), Friday, July 3, 1964, 3A:
“ . . . This is why the Civil Rights Act relies first on voluntary compliance, then on the efforts of states and local communities to secure the rights of citizens. It provides for the national authority to step in only when others cannot or will not do the job. . . ”
Why do we have an entire section sourced to a David Frum book whose purpose is to argue that civil rights supporters were dastardly liars who tricked waverers into voting for a bill that allowed busing? john k (talk) 13:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
[moved here from my talk page] "Accepted" by who? Anyone can say anything he likes about a non-existent landmark. It suits you to use a passive without an agent. America is wallowing in post-war guilt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
- Do a google search of "landmark civil rights act" (with the quotes). You will find that "landmark" is very frequently associated with "civil rights act." Justify your attempt to eliminate the term "landmark" -- blaming it on "post war guilt" is, at best, bizarre. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 16:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Title VII of the Act.
Found a typo in one of my edit summaries -- obviously it is Title VII, not Title VI, of the Act that prohibits employment discrimination (on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin). Famspear (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the phrase "President Johnson realized that supporting this bill would risk losing the South's overwhelming support of the Democratic Party." it was actually President Kennedy. The following phrases make it clear: Both Attorney General Robert Kennedy and Vice President Johnson had pushed for the introduction of the civil rights legislation. Johnson told Kennedy aide Ted Sorensen that "I know the risks are great and we might lose the South, but those sorts of states may be lost anyway."
- Both President Kennedy and later President Johnson expressed the same fear that supporting civil rights would alienate white voters in the South and turn them against the Democratic Party. There are many quotes in many sources attesting to this. For example, in NY Times artice of July 2nd 1989: "Hours after he signed it [the Civil Rights Act], the President said to his press aide, Bill Moyers, "I think we just delivered the South to the Republican Party for a long time to come." Brucehartford (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
>There were white business owners who claimed that Congress did not have the constitutional authority to ban segregation in public accommodations. For example, Moreton Rolleston, the owner of a motel in Atlanta, Georgia, believed he should not be forced to serve black travelers, saying, “the fundamental question…is whether or not Congress has the power to take away the liberty of an individual to run his business as he sees fit in the selection and choice of his customers”. Rolleston used legal means in an attempt to prevent full equality for African Americans, claiming that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a breach of the Fourteenth Amendment. Also, Rolleston argued that the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments were in violation as the bill deprived him of "liberty and property without due process”. In Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, Congress claimed that it drew its authority from the Constitution’s commerce clause, disagreeing with Rolleston’s claims.
I don't think this is NPOV. The guy's argument is a canonical libertarian line of argument, and representing it in the surrounding text as having an underlying ideological motivation other than that stated-- it just seems sketchy to me. & there's other stuff like this 2601:C:A200:7F8:644D:63B3:7245:882 (talk) 12:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
The blanket statement that the Civil Rights Act "outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin" is not entirely true. There are various contexts in which discrimination on these bases is legal. For instance, in casting parts for performance arts. Also, religious institutions have some leeway to legally discriminate in hiring based on religion. Et cetera. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
By Party and Region
I made a small change to the first paragraph, as while the 11 states that made up the Southern Caucus also a century before also made up the CSA, it is to the Southern Caucus that historians cite in opposition to the Civil Rights Act, and not the CSA. Dubyavee (talk) 22:45, 2 July 2014 (UTC)